MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2559840333 · doi:10.5596/c16-025

Covidence and Rayyan

2016· article· en· W2559840333 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Rachel Couban

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Canadian Health Libraries Association / Journal de l Association de bilbiothèques de la santé du Canada · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicMeta-analysis and systematic reviews
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSplashSystematic reviewSoftwareComputer scienceWorld Wide WebEngineeringPolitical scienceLawMechanical engineeringMEDLINEOperating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Two new software products are making a splash in the world of systematic reviews, Covidence and Rayyan. Both have ben developed from within the SR community, by and for users, on a not-for-profit basis. Rayyan is free for anyone, and Covidence is free for Cochrane Reviews. Both are user-friendly and work well for title and abstract screening!

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.126
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.625
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.874
Threshold uncertainty score0.667

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1260.625
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0040.007
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0110.010
Bibliometrics0.0360.047
Science and technology studies0.0020.004
Scholarly communication0.0160.019
Open science0.0060.011
Research integrity0.0080.013
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1210.025

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.115
GPT teacher head0.390
Teacher spread0.274 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
DomainMethods
GenreMethods

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations16
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Canadian Health Libraries Association / Journal de l Association de bilbiothèques de la santé du CanadaSame topicMeta-analysis and systematic reviewsFrench-language works237,207